DIS Shareholders and Stock Info ONLY

A new 52 week high and nobody's got noth'in to say?
On the road and unable to post yesterday. Currently @ Homasassa Springs, headed to WDW, via Everglades City, Cudjoe Key, Miami Beach, and Universal Orlando.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disn...5209507.html?_fsig=jMCAGcvCR9TCGrHYaHztsA--~A

Disney stock upgraded by Barclays as turnaround plan takes shape

by Alexandra Canal · Senior Reporter
Mon, March 25, 2024 at 8:52 AM PDT

Disney (DIS) shares rose more than 2% on Monday following a fresh upgrade on Wall Street.

Barclays analyst Kannan Venkateshwar upgraded the stock to Overweight from Equal Weight and boosted his price target on shares to $135 from the prior $95. The move implies roughly 15% upside based on current trading levels of about $120 a share.
Venkateshwar argued better-than-expected free cash flow and earnings guidance, coupled with "tactical tailwinds" such as the Hollywood strikes, Hulu's consolidation, and cost cuts, have helped buoy investor confidence.

Meanwhile, "the propensity among media investors to be long Disney, has resulted in the stock outperforming broader markets meaningfully thus far this year, at a pace faster than we anticipated."

The stock has been on a tear since the start of the year, up more than 30% compared to the S&P 500's (^GSPC) 10% rise over that same time period.

It's a significant turnaround for the company after its stock price hit multiyear lows last year.

The media giant has been grappling with challenges that include a declining linear TV business, slower growth in its parks business, and losses in its streaming business. A heated proxy battle with activist investor Nelson Peltz has also clouded the company's outlook.

But Venkateshwar argued Disney's next phase "may be more impactful as a number of turnaround elements still remain work in progress and may manifest more in numbers starting next year."

In his bull case, the analyst said sooner-than-expected streaming profitability could serve as a boon to the stock price.

"We expect Disney streaming to break even potentially a quarter or two earlier than company guidance of Q4 2024," he explained. "This is in part driven by the tailwinds from cost cuts over the last few quarters and recent price increases."

Venkateshwar said he believes Disney will likely achieve streaming margins "that are better than Netflix," estimating potential margins in the 25% to 30% range, "which is not too different from where linear margins today are."

Other "upside narrative surprises" could include ESPN's yet-to-be-announced streaming partners for its over-the-top service, set to debut sometime in fall 2025, in addition to a refocused attention on long-term succession plans post-proxy battle.

Conversely, the analyst's bear case calls out declining non-sports TV viewership as linear network revenue falls amid increased cord cutting. Streaming, although a potential positive, could also be a net negative if subscriber growth does not pick up and pricing headwinds hit revenue growth.
 
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disn...ia--heres-why-its-pulling-back-100042448.html

Disney had big plans in India — here's why it's pulling back

by Alexandra Canal · Senior Reporter
Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 6:00 AM EDT

Disney once embraced the opportunity to expand into India. Now it’s backing away.
Five years ago, the media giant’s $71 billion 21st Century Fox deal gave it access to the Indian TV network Star, which hosts dozens of sports and entertainment channels, along with its streaming service Hotstar.

But the House of Mouse is now scaling back its ambitions in the country and taking a back seat to a local player. Last month, Disney said it would merge Star — once viewed as a crown jewel — with Indian telecom giant Reliance Industries in a joint venture estimated to be worth $8.5 billion. Disney will be a minority shareholder in the entity.

The decision highlights the challenges posed by the Indian entertainment market despite its allure of growth, multiple analysts told Yahoo Finance. While India offers the opportunity to reach millions of viewers, competition is fierce and success requires a significant amount of investment that US media companies may not be prepared to make as they grapple with cord-cutting challenges domestically.

India, which boasts a population of more than 1.4 billion, has become a media hotspot with projected TV and streaming-related revenue growth of 11% in 2024. That compares with much more muted growth in other developing countries, according to analytics firm Ampere Analysis.

But the market has been a hard one for US media companies to crack. First of all, it’s difficult for companies to create a direct relationship with Indian consumers, who largely rely on mobile operators to gain access to streaming services due to limited broadband infrastructure.

Indian consumers also have a relatively low willingness to pay for streaming platforms thanks to free, ad-supported models from local content providers and rampant piracy.
Local content providers — the top four being Star India, Viacom18, Sony, and Zee Entertainment — have largely been able to service India's vast population, which spans many different languages and dialects. Reliance, which has leveraged the success of its booming telecom business, has added yet another competitive layer to the diverse Indian TV market.

"It's quite a fragmented media landscape," Neil Anderson, senior analyst at Ampere Analysis, told Yahoo Finance, noting local players have much larger ad businesses in addition to stronger production capabilities around entertainment and sports.
It’s not just local competitors taking market share. Netflix (NFLX) and Amazon (AMZN) — two tech giants with significantly higher free cash flow levels compared to their legacy media counterparts — have made inroads with higher-income Indian consumers by offering localized content, said Mihir Shah, vice president of research firm Media Partners Asia.

"The real story in India has been the growth of the middle- to higher-income consumer," Shah said. "That's a segment which many of the tech platforms [like] Netflix and Prime Video are really dominating."

The challenge, however, comes in penetrating the next 50 million households when income levels drop and more investment is needed to break through, he said.

All this has translated into tough times for Disney. The company lost the rights to stream Indian Premier League cricket matches through Hotstar to Reliance in 2022.

In another setback, Hotstar lost popular HBO content including top programs like "Succession," "Game of Thrones," and "The Last of Us." Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), the parent company of HBO, instead made the content available through Indian streaming service JioCinema, which is owned by Viacom18.

In its latest fiscal year ending in September, Disney reported 37.6 million Hotstar subscribers, down a whopping 39% compared to the prior-year period.
On top of subscriber headwinds, foreign exchange has also been an issue.

The value of the Indian rupee, for example, has dropped roughly 20% since Disney's Fox acquisition in 2019. That has impacted metrics like average revenue per user (ARPU) for Hotstar subscribers, which is pennies on the dollar compared to where the metric stands for Disney's US-based subscribers.

During an earnings call in November, Disney CEO Bob Iger admitted to challenges in the Indian market but also said the company "would like to stay" and that its linear business "actually does quite well" in the country.

Industry observers told Yahoo Finance that the problems Disney faced in its core businesses likely played a role in the company’s decision to pull back.

In the years since the Fox merger, Disney’s parks business has slowed, its linear TV division has declined, and its streaming business, which launched at the end of 2019, is not yet profitable. Meanwhile, activist Nelson Peltz renewed his push to shake up Disney's board after the stock price hit multiyear record lows last year.

"It's really about putting the oxygen mask on first and saying, 'What's core to our business?'" David Wisnia, partner and managing director of media and entertainment at consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal, told Yahoo Finance.

Disney’s not the only US media giant to reverse course on India recently. Just two weeks after Disney’s joint venture announcement, Paramount Global (PARA) said it was selling its 13% stake in Indian media company Viacom18 to Reliance for about $517 million.

"These companies need to focus on their 'core,' which is streaming," Wisnia said. "So we have to fix that first and make sure that is a profitable venture before we invest in things that are not going to show profitability for years to come."

That may mean a fast-growing market like India just isn’t a priority today for an industry already under significant pressure.

“Legacy companies don’t have the luxury of time,” Wisnia stressed. “Their priorities are on immediate returns.”

Still, the long game is one Disney seems open to playing.

"Disney is still choosing to have skin in the game," Media Partners Asia’s Shah said, referencing the company's 37% holding in its joint venture partnership with Reliance. "They're getting a decent enough valuation and they can use the proceeds to recalibrate the business in the home market."
 
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/comcasts-peacock-amazon-prime-video-180300019.htm

Comcast's Peacock and Amazon Prime Video to stream exclusive NFL games

Reuters
Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 2:03 PM EDT

March 26 (Reuters) - Comcast's streaming service Peacock will exclusively feature the National Football League's Week 1 game, the NFL said on Tuesday, as part of its updated media distribution agreements for the 2024 season.

Rival Amazon.com's Prime Video will exclusively stream the NFL Wild Card game this season, marking the second time an NFL playoff game will be available exclusively via a streaming service, the football league said.

The Week 1 game, which kicks off the regular 2024 season, will be held in São Paulo, Brazil, on Friday, Sept. 6.

It is the NFL's first-ever regular season game in South America and the first time the league has played a game on a Friday night of their opening weekend in over 50 years.
Last season's AFC Wild Card game, in which The Miami Dolphins clashed with the Kansas City Chiefs, was streamed on Peacock.

The game averaged about 23 million viewers and was the most-streamed live event in U.S. history, buoying Comcast's quarterly revenue estimates in January.

NFL is one of the most valuable sports franchises world over, with media rights reportedly costing as much as $110 billion.

Comcast had said in March 2021 that beginning with the 2023 NFL season, NBC and Peacock will present Sunday Night Football through 2033 – a span of 28 seasons.
 


Yes, it looks like just the state issues are settled. Has anyone seen details on the settlement? (And let's not let the discussion veer into politics, just the facts on the settlement only!)

https://www.wesh.com/article/ron-desantis-disney-lawsuit-settlement/60319174

In a statement to WESH 2, Jeff Vahle, President of Walt Disney World Resort said:

“We are pleased to put an end to all litigation pending in state court in Florida between Disney and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. This agreement opens a new chapter of constructive engagement with the new leadership of the district and serves the interests of all parties by enabling significant continued investment and the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and economic opportunity in the State.”
 
https://www.wdwmagic.com/other/reed...ent-agreement-bringing-lawsuits-to-an-end.htm

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the webiste linked above, but FWIW,

"The highlights of the agreement as presented by CFTOD litigation counsel Paul Huck include:
  • The development agreement and restrictive covenants previously under lawsuit are to be considered null and void.
  • Disney will not challenge the district's view that certain comprehensive plans and land development regulations adopted in January of the previous year are invalid, recognizing the 2020 Comprehensive Plan as the current operative plan.
  • The district commits to reviewing and potentially amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with consultations involving Disney and other relevant parties.
  • Both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice the claims and counterclaim in the ongoing state court lawsuit.
  • Disney will also dismiss with prejudice a separate state court litigation regarding public records and withdraw its pending public records request.
  • The labor services agreement between the district and the Reedy Creek energy services would be amended so that the term would expire in 2028 rather than 2032, and its automatic renewal provisions removed.
  • Disney asserts ownership of certain long-term mitigation credits, with the district agreeing not to interfere with their use. These credits stem from permits issued by multiple agencies, with Disney having funded their creation.
  • Concerning a federal court case Disney filed, which is currently on appeal, both parties will seek to defer briefing on the appeal while negotiating a new development agreement.
  • Both entities agree not to contest each other's actions prior to a specific date, with certain exceptions related to the content of the settlement agreement and potential defenses in the federal lawsuit.
  • Finally, the agreement includes mutual releases by both parties."
 


https://www.wdwmagic.com/other/reed...ent-agreement-bringing-lawsuits-to-an-end.htm

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the webiste linked above, but FWIW,

"The highlights of the agreement as presented by CFTOD litigation counsel Paul Huck include:
  • The development agreement and restrictive covenants previously under lawsuit are to be considered null and void.
  • Disney will not challenge the district's view that certain comprehensive plans and land development regulations adopted in January of the previous year are invalid, recognizing the 2020 Comprehensive Plan as the current operative plan.
  • The district commits to reviewing and potentially amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with consultations involving Disney and other relevant parties.
  • Both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice the claims and counterclaim in the ongoing state court lawsuit.
  • Disney will also dismiss with prejudice a separate state court litigation regarding public records and withdraw its pending public records request.
  • The labor services agreement between the district and the Reedy Creek energy services would be amended so that the term would expire in 2028 rather than 2032, and its automatic renewal provisions removed.
  • Disney asserts ownership of certain long-term mitigation credits, with the district agreeing not to interfere with their use. These credits stem from permits issued by multiple agencies, with Disney having funded their creation.
  • Concerning a federal court case Disney filed, which is currently on appeal, both parties will seek to defer briefing on the appeal while negotiating a new development agreement.
  • Both entities agree not to contest each other's actions prior to a specific date, with certain exceptions related to the content of the settlement agreement and potential defenses in the federal lawsuit.
  • Finally, the agreement includes mutual releases by both parties."
That is pretty much what the video I posted above says...
 
That is pretty much what the video I posted above says...
I know you wanted to stick to the terms of the settlement agreement, but after looking at this matter a little further, I do not see how this is a good deal for TWDC. I can't shake the feeling that this "settlement agreement" is like a full-scale retreat by Bob Iger and Jeff Vahle. Maybe I'm missing something here in this agreement that makes this situation a win for TWDC?
 
I'm sure Disney looked at what they'd like/need to do for WDW and decided it was easier to not have to deal with an antagonistic bureaucracy. They want to invest in their existing areas to keep pace with Universal. I doubt we'll see any investment outside of the parks though. The risk of losing the state lawsuit was worse than the settlement. It was a wise move.
 
Disney can develop and plan again. CFTOD didn’t have to turn over documents. Things are back to pre-CFTOD with exception of the name?
Yes, it does appear to be a bit of a back to the future with the 2020 plan back in place. Only difference now is the control of appointing board members, but Disney had to know that that kind of control over a quasi-public entity was going to come to an end sooner or later. And the new head of the board has some county board experience so that is a step in the right direction, too.

This kind of gets TWDC back to where they said they would be when the board was first established, remember the letter from TWDC saying (something like) they looked forward to cooperating with the new board and to continuing to provide excellent service...
 
https://deadline.com/2024/03/disney...ks-activist-investor-nelson-peltz-1235869485/

In Disney Proxy Battle, A Second Advisory Firm Backs Activist Investor Nelson Peltz

By Dade Hayes - Business Editor
March 27, 2024 - 5:50am PDT

Proxy advisor Egan-Jones on Wednesday became the second independent firm to support activist Nelson Peltz‘s effort to secure seats on the Disney board.

The endorsement follows that of ISS earlier this month, which was a notable win for Peltz’s Trian Fund Management as it is the biggest advisory firm and highly influential. While ISS backed Peltz alone, Egan-Jones is supports both the billionaire activist investor and former Disney executive Jay Rasulo, Trian’s other nominee to the Disney board. The firm is recommending shareholders withhold support for Maria Elena Lagomasino and Michael B.G. Froman, who are members of Disney’s slate of nominees.

Disney shareholders’ votes will be tallied at company’s annual meeting next Wednesday.

“We see very little downside and a lot of upsides in putting the Trian nominees on the board,” Egan-Jones said in an announcement. The firm cited an “apparent lack” of a long-term succession plan and a board that “appears cut off and unwilling to engage with investors and the broader market.”

Egan-Jones said the company’s business model is “built for the last decade, but not forward looking and flexible enough to ensure success in the next.” The current board, it added, is characterized by “a desire to protect the status quo for as long as possible and at all costs.”

Trian began agitating last year after Disney shares sank to a multi-year low, though they have since rebounded. Along with succession, Trian has criticized Disney’s film strategy. The opposition movement is the most significant faced by Disney since 2004, when Michael Eisner was stripped of his chairman title. That action soon led to his exit from the company and ushered in the start of Iger’s initial 14-year run as CEO. After turmoil at the company under his hand-picked successor, Bob Chapek, Iger returned as CEO in November 2022.

Disney has repeatedly hit back at Peltz, saying he lacks media business experience. The 81-year-old investor has had a track record of leading a number of successful proxy battles, including a recent one at consumer products giant Procter & Gamble.

Proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis, another leading firm, weeks ago threw its weight behind Disney’s board nominees. Iger and Disney have also received public backing from George Lucas, Laurene Powell Jobs and several members of the Disney family.
 
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/paramount-global-junk-rating-sp-global-1235953838/

Mar 27, 2024 - 12:26pm PDT
by Todd Spangler
Paramount Global’s Debt Rating Downgraded to Junk by S&P
Analyst says more buyers likely to emerge for media company's assets with ratings cut

Paramount Global‘s debt rating was cut to junk status by credit-rating agency S&P Global, which cited the media conglomerate’s ongoing challenges with free cash flow generation relative to its debt.

S&P on Wednesday said it expects Paramount Global’s free operating cash flow-to-debt will remain “well below” 10% through 2025, and that adjusted leverage (debt-to-equity ratio) will stay above 3.5 times through then. The agency cited “the ongoing deterioration of the linear television ecosystem and the elevated investments for its direct-to-consumer (DTC) streaming model” for the downgrade.

“Paramount will need to execute its plan to substantially improve streaming losses over the next two years to mitigate further downside ratings pressure,” S&P said in its ratings adjustment. Paramount Global’s long-term debt was $14.6 billion as of the end of 2023.

The S&P downgrade comes a week after word emerged of an $11 billion bid by private-equity firm Apollo Global Management for Paramount Pictures — a price tag some $3 billion more than the current total market cap of the parent company.

S&P’s credit-rating cut on Paramount Global increases the chance that more buyers for its assets will come forward, Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall wrote in a research note. That’s because with the junk status assigned to its debt, an acquiring party would “not need to repay [or] reissue the debt,” he wrote. “We think any party interested in all or pieces of [Paramount Global], including studios, IP, CBS and real estate, are more likely to emerge now that the debt [cash on cash return] is void,” according to Cahall.

As part of its ratings update, S&P issued a “stable outlook” for Paramount Global, which “reflects our expectation that leverage will decline to around 4.0X in 2024 with FOCF/debt improving to about 5% as losses in the streaming segment materially decline.” That is “largely based on our assumption that streaming losses will improve by more than $700 million due to strong average revenue per user (ARPU) growth from price increases enacted in mid-2023 and ongoing, albeit more modest, subscriber growth.”

S&P Global on Feb. 23 placed Paramount Global on “credit watch negative.” Previously, the firm had a “BBB-” rating on the company, its lowest investment-grade rating. With the change Wednesday, S&P now has a issuer credit rating on Paramount Global and its senior unsecured debt of of “BB+,” which is the “highest speculative-grade by market participants.” At the same time, S&P lowered its issue-level rating on Paramount Global’s junior subordinated debt to “BB-” from “BB” and its short-term rating to “B” from “A-3.”
 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...-nelson-peltz-shareholder-meeting-1235860938/

Bob Iger’s Invincible Era Is Over​

After a major Wall Street firm sides with activist Nelson Peltz ahead of an April 3 shareholders meeting, investors are questioning how the CEO plans to plot out growth — and his own succession.

BY ALEX WEPRIN
MARCH 27, 2024

If Bob Iger were a Marvel superhero, his power would be persuasion. The Disney CEO has long leaned on his ability to convince others of his plans. From film and TV writers, directors and stars, to Disney shareholders, to the company’s own board members, Iger’s track record has been impeccable.

Consider possibly the most important deal he ever led: Disney’s $4 billion acquisition of Marvel Entertainment in 2009. While Marvel’s success since then is not in dispute, at the time the idea of Disney chasing young men via the comic book brand was seen as a real risk. In his 2019 memoir The Ride of a Lifetime, Iger recalls how he pitched a skeptical Steve Jobs on the deal.

Jobs, who had sold Pixar to Disney just a couple of years earlier, was Disney’s largest shareholder and a member of the board. He also told Iger that he had never read a comic book in his life, “so I brought an encyclopedia of Marvel characters with me to explain the universe to him and show him what we would be buying,” Iger recalled. Jobs ultimately bought into the idea and called Marvel chairman Ike Perlmutter to vouch for Iger, helping to seal the deal.

Fifteen years later and Disney finds itself at a crossroads, facing a bitter proxy fight with Nelson Peltz and his Trian Partners, who are backed by billions of dollars in Disney stock owned by Perlmutter, all set to come to a head April 3 at Disney’s annual meeting.

The former Marvel chairman, who was let go last year in a round of corporate cost-cutting, plays a shadow role in Peltz’s push, with the Trian chief telling Financial Times in an interview, “Why do I have to have a Marvel that’s all women? Not that I have anything against women, but why do I have to do that? Why can’t I have Marvels that are both? Why do I need an all-Black cast?” — comments that mirror critiques of Iger’s strategy by Perlmutter. And Peltz said of Marvel chief Kevin Feige, “I question his record,” again mirroring comments from Perlmutter, and sparking a rebuke from Disney, which noted that with $30 billion at the box office, Feige is the top-grossing producer of all time.

Iger has been pulling out all the stops to convince Disney shareholders (given its long history and high profile, Disney has a higher percentage of retail shareholders than most companies) that the company is in the middle of a turnaround, and that Peltz is a “distraction” that will ultimately hurt the company rather than help it. “This campaign is, in a way, designed to distract us, to take our eye off all those balls,” Iger said at a Morgan Stanley conference March 5.

But the endgame (to lean on a Marvel reference) remains uncertain. Iger and the Disney board have lined up a murderers’ row of public supporters, securing letters of support from not only Laurene Powell Jobs, former Disney CEO Michael Eisner and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, but also Star Wars filmmaker George Lucas, who disagrees with Iger about the right approach for future films in the sci-fi universe. And Disney secured letters of support from the families of Walt Disney and Roy Disney, including Abigail Disney, who has long critiqued Iger over his pay packages and the company’s treatment of its employees.

But the surprise recommendation from Institutional Shareholder Services on March 21 to vote for Peltz over current Disney board member Maria Elena Lagomasino placed a level of uncertainty over the vote, giving Peltz’s campaign oxygen at a moment when it was on the verge of being snuffed out. And so, as the voting heads into the final stretch, Iger’s persuasion skills have been in full effect.

The company’s last earnings call saw Iger unleash a barrage of announcements: A surprise release of Moana 2, hitting theaters this year, an investment and partnership with Epic Games, Taylor Swift’s Era’s Tour movie hitting Disney+, etc.

Iger has frequently cited earnings calls as a time and place where he can set the stage for Wall Street, and make announcements to shore up the company’s stock price.

Bank of America’s Jessica Reif Ehrlich, for example, reacted to the report with a note titled “Bundles of Joy,” writing that “in a little over a year since returning to the company as CEO, Bob Iger’s actions are already having an impact. Moreover, the company has undertaken bold, decisive steps to address the evolving landscape…”

And on March 25, CFRA’s Kenneth Leon wrote that “we believe [Disney] has a rigorous plan to drive future growth and enterprise value leading to the April 3 shareholder meeting,” specifically calling out the company’s parks and sports business lines.

Other analysts have been more circumspect, noting the changes that still need to come: “We think mgmt attention remains on creative,” Wells Fargo’s Steven Cahall wrote Feb. 9. “The last thing investors want to see to solidify support is content hits.

And S&P Global’s Naveen Sarma wrote of Disney’s upcoming sports streaming service that while it could provide valuable data, it could also “put a cap on the potential price for Disney’s future ESPN flagship DTC service, limiting its profitability.”

But as powerful as Iger is, even he has recognized the risks of his own influence.

“Being atop a company that is so well known, the power of my voice is so much greater than it ever was and sometimes than I ever expect it to be,” Iger said in a 2019 interview at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “I’m much more careful with how I use it, either when I say something or what I say or how I say it.”

It’s something Iger himself recalled in a dispute with David Lynch over when to reveal a key plot point in his series Twin Peaks, back when Iger was running ABC.

“Deep down, I felt David was frustrating the audience, but it may well be that my demands for an answer to the question of who killed Laura Palmer threw the show into another kind of narrative disarray,” Iger recalled. “David might have been right all along.”

Yet most significantly for Iger, his reputation for making the right call at the right time has been punctured in Disney’s ever-evolving succession process. Indeed, the question was at the heart of the ISS recommendation. The ill-fated decision to name Bob Chapek CEO of The Walt Disney Co. in early 2020 was, it seems, as abrupt as it appeared publicly. ISS wrote in its blistering report that “Chapek’s sudden appointment at the onset of the pandemic was not a result of a rigorous process, by the board’s own admission during engagement with ISS.

“It appears that there was no structured board-mandated interview process, and that the board primarily relied on Iger’s judgment in making this decision,” the report continues, adding that the board said it encouraged Chapek to build a relationship with Disney’s creative executives after naming him CEO: “Which begs the question of why somebody who was being considered as a contender to succeed Iger hadn’t been working on those relationships well before the transition.”

For all of Iger’s ability to persuade, the succession issue has been the Achilles’ heel, which is why Peltz has pushed it so aggressively. But it is also an issue that Disney’s board seems acutely aware of, and while Iger may have had little pushback in his previous succession calls, the board seems poised to make its own decision this time. (Iger’s CEO contract runs through 2026, but Disney is expected to unveil succession plans well before then.)

The Disney board’s succession committee, comprising Mark Parker, James Gorman, Mary Barra and Calvin McDonald, sent a letter to institutional shareholders March 22 seeking to address “inaccurate assertions” in the ISS report. The committee writes that they are meeting frequently and reviewing internal and external candidates with the help of a search firm. “Each internal candidate is going through a rigorous preparation process,” the letter continues. “This includes mentorship from Bob Iger and external coaching, engagement with all Board directors, and comprehensive reviews of each candidate.”

The letter doesn’t name the internal candidates, but ISS noted that the Disney board highlighted the work of some Disney leaders by name in their talks: Disney entertainment co-chiefs Dana Walden and Alan Bergman, parks chief Josh D’Amaro, ESPN chief Jimmy Pitaro, and Disney chief brand officer Asad Ayaz. And Iger himself told journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin last November that “I’ve tried hard to conduct my own postmortem just so that we as a company don’t do it again” when it comes to succession.

As the final votes roll in from retail investors, institutional investors and major stockholders like Jobs, Lucas and Perlmutter, that question — What will Disney look like post-Iger? — seems to be the one hanging in the balance. And the results on April 3 could be a pivot point in that process.

A version of this story first appeared in the March 27 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dis
So after two years Disney has raised the white flag, dropped all lawsuits against the State of Florida and said they are looking forward to working with Florida. This was a self inflicted wound. Like Universal Studios did, Disney should have stayed out of politics. This cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. There will be sharehoder law suits, costing Disney even more. Unlike a private held company, Disney answers to shareholders and will be held responsible for any decisions that cost shareholders value.
 
So after two years Disney has raised the white flag, dropped all lawsuits against the State of Florida and said they are looking forward to working with Florida. This was a self inflicted wound. Like Universal Studios did, Disney should have stayed out of politics. This cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. There will be sharehoder law suits, costing Disney even more. Unlike a private held company, Disney answers to shareholders and will be held responsible for any decisions that cost shareholders value.

They have not dropped all lawsuits yet. The Federal appeal is "on hold" pending further negotiation, though it seems likely that it will be dropped as long as the board decides to be cooperative on the future development plan. It's no coincidence that a couple of key board members changed very recently. I'd be willing to bet that Iger has been working this behind the scenes - as he should - and has helped to arrive at a result that is acceptible for all parties.

And, while I don't really approve of the way previous CEO Bob chapek handled things, I will say that there are more important things than money.
 
They have not dropped all lawsuits yet. The Federal appeal is "on hold" pending further negotiation, though it seems likely that it will be dropped as long as the board decides to be cooperative on the future development plan. It's no coincidence that a couple of key board members changed very recently. I'd be willing to bet that Iger has been working this behind the scenes - as he should - and has helped to arrive at a result that is acceptible for all parties.

And, while I don't really approve of the way previous CEO Bob chapek handled things, I will say that there are more important things than money.

Pretty sure Disney keeps their “mitigation” credits too, which was a huge contention point and would hinder further development on property as they likely have quite the wetland credit.

Plus, the 2020 development plan was created by Disney anyway.
 
This cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars. There will be sharehoder law suits, costing Disney even more.

True. But, if I were TWDC I would be more concerned with the regulatory costs (i.e. impact fees, environmental fees, etc.) for future development. TWDC never had to pay those regulatory costs before to the State of Florida, being insulated by the special rules for RCID. Based upon my cursory review of the settlement terms nothing takes that revenue source for the State off the table.

And folks I realize that many other businesses (i.e. Publix) have to pay these regulatory fees too, but WDW will have future projects that larger (and more engineered/complicated) than any grocery store building that Publix is constructing or remodeling.

So, that's why I'm saying "Yikes" for TWDC.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts







facebook twitter
Top